If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

War on Libya

How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let us look at the facts for a moment.

Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.

People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human DevelopmentIndex of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the resources while the population starves, unlike countries like Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.

Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in fact he doesn't, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should be compared to a founding father.

The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The current prime-minister is Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan. Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary. Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the architect of Libya's current political system, a mixture of pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.

Videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests are disappearing from Youtube as we speak. "Pro Gaddafi Anti Baghdadi Mahmudi demonstrations in" is gone. "Pro Gaddafi protests in front of Libyan embassy London" is gone. Youtube deletes any video containing gore normally, except when it's from Libya. Apparently more traumatizing to it's viewers than chopped up bodies are Libyans who do not jump on the bandwagon and enter the streets to force Gadaffi out.

Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the general people's congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on fire?

The first major attack of "Odyssey Dawn" came as 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck surface-to-air missiles, early warning sites, and key communication modes. It's the first step in enforcing a no-fly zone.

As the situation in Libya escalated toward international war, the Obama administration was careful to portray US involvement as “supportive” with other countries in the lead. But on day one of the multinational conflict, it was the United States that provided most of the firepower and command direction for "Operation Odyssey Dawn." Just hours – perhaps minutes – after an emergency summit in Paris on implementing the UN Security Council resolution authorizing military action in Libya, French and British fighters were probing Libyan airspace.

There were early reports that French jets had hit as many as four Libyan army tanks. But the first major attack came as 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles from US Navy ships (and one British submarine) struck surface-to-air missiles, early warning sites, and key communication modes.

“This will allow us to penetrate a medium-to-high threat environment without putting air crews at risk,” explained Vice Admiral William Gortney, director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a Saturday afternoon Pentagon briefing. “It opens up as wide a space as possible for the no-fly zone.”

US Navy ships in the Mediterranean include the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, amphibious warships USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, and a command-and-control ship, the USS Mount Whitney. In all, 11 US Navy ships are in the area, in addition to 14 coalition ships.

Leaders of the coalition countries were quick to speak about the decision to attack Libyan targets.

“What we are doing in necessary, it is legal, and it is right,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron. “I believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people.”

“I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it,” President Obama said from Brazil, the first stop in his Latin America trip. “I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly.”

“But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government,” he said. “So we must be clear: Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced.”

The Pentagon has dubbed the venture "Operation Odyssey Dawn.” In command of the operation from the USS Mount Whitney is Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of all US naval forces in Europe and Africa.

After Secretary of Defense Robert Gates arrived at Kabul Airport this morning where he was greeted by General David Petraeus, microphones picked up the two men joking about launching an attack on Libya.

Petraeus and Gates shook hands after Gates arrived.

"Welcome back, sir,” Petraeus said to Gates. This is Gates’ 13th trip to Afghanistan as Secretary of Defense.

The two men began walking.

"Flying a little bigger plane than normal, you gonna launch some attacks on Libya or something?" Petreaus joked to Gates.

"Yeah, exactly,” Gates joked back.

Comment:

Tuesday they joked and Saturday they bombed, the world knows what you are collateral murder is so funny huh, another day another dollar and more oil…

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the Un...ited States and the world'...

Attack on Libya: Leader promises long war after 'unjustified' missile assault

Gadhafi vows Libya will defend itself

Moammar Gadhafi is vowing Libya will defend itself from what he calls "crusader aggression," as U.S.-led international forces begin an attack in support of the rebel uprising against him.

Gadhafi is promising "a long war."

The Libyan leader says the involvement of international forces will subject the Mediterranean and North African region to danger and put civilians at risk.

He also warns that weapons depots are being opened to arm the Libyan people in defense.

Hours earlier, the U.S. fired more than 100 cruise missiles at his air defenses.

Gadhafi spoke around midnight Saturday in a phone call to Libyan state TV.

He said the international action against his forces was unjustified, calling it "simply a colonial crusader aggression that may ignite another large-scale crusader war."

Locals react to airstrikes in Libya

Libyans living in Orlando organized a rally at Lake Eola Saturday night.

They said they are very happy to see the involvement of countries like France and the U.S. They say it gives them new hope.

Some also said they wish it would have had happen weeks ago.

They were out with signs and chants blasting what they call Moammar Gadhafi's reign of terror.

Since unrest broke out in Libya, the Orlando group said they have relatives who have been killed in the fighting.

They said they have trouble reaching loved ones. When they do get a hold of them, they have to listen for things like gunfire in the background, because since calls are recorded Libyans are afraid to say what's
really going on.

"I'm asking him how's everything going and he says fine, you can hear it in his voice. It's lifeless you can tell everything's not OK," said organizer Asmaa Elmani.

They held a candlelight vigil for loved ones they said have died in the pursuit of freedom.

They prayed for the well-being of everyone in Libya, loved ones they said that are difficult to reach.

They also prayed the U.S. air strikes will work, because they say Gadhafi won't respond to reason.

Gas prices expected to rise

If you need to fill up your gas tank, you may not want to wait too long. The attack on Libya is expected to cause gas prices to go from bad to worse.

The current national average for a price of regular unleaded is 3.54. That's down just one cent from last week. But experts believe prices will skyrocket after the recent air strike.

Libya is the world's 12th largest oil exporter. Since unrest began, production has dramatically decreased by about three quarters.

So as oil export slows to a trickle, experts believe it will likely dry up as military action continues. With that, the focus is on Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Things are contained at the moment. But if they start exchanging fire, it could easily drive the market above the record high.

Refugees fleeing the upheaval in North Africa are running into a different sort of political conflict in Europe.

Since mid-January, more than 10,000 refugees from countries such as Tunisia and Libya have arrived at the Italian island of Lampedusa.

Marine Le Pen, who heads France's far-right National Front Party and is a leading contender in next year's presidential election in France, appeared on the island on Monday to let them know they aren't welcome.

Le Pen and other far-right politicians have gained traction recently — in large part by raising concerns about immigration. This has put Europe's leaders into a difficult position.

The leaders have expressed support for the democratic aspirations that have led to unrest throughout the Muslim world — and they don't want to be insensitive to the plight of refugees fleeing repression and
violence. On the other hand, they recognize that a flood of refugees would add to prevailing unease about the difficulties of integrating immigrants, especially Muslims.

"Europe is being invaded," Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni complained last week, referring to the current exodus from North Africa.

Last year, a book by Thilo Sarrazin arguing that immigrants are destroying Germany was an enormous best-seller, triggering a national debate.

Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and, more recently, British Prime Minister David Cameron have said that multiculturalism and immigrant integration have failed in their countries.

Meanwhile, Le Pen says that European navies "should go as close as possible to the coasts from where the clandestine boats departed to send them back."

And something like that may be starting to happen. On Tuesday, Italy refused a ferry carrying 1,800 passengers — most of them Moroccans who had fled Libya — entry into its waters.

Europeans have a harder time than Americans in believing that immigrants or even their children can assimilate and become true members of their society.

"The Europeans announced an increase in the aid package to Tunisia to buy the problem away from their shores," says Conley of CSIS.

These new political refugees are more likely to be professional or members of the middle class, Bloemraad says. They also have risked their lives for a widely hailed cause, which will put to the test "the knee-jerk
anti-Muslim reactions that you've seen over the last 10 years," she adds.

"The people in Libya are embracing what the West sees as their values — democracy and lack of repression," she says. "Making the Muslim 'alien' is going to be much more difficult."

"You know, when you come to somewhere like Libya, you expect lies and deceit from the dictatorship here," Robertson said. "You don't expect it from the other journalists." You can watch Robertson's reply on CNN's "The Situation Room" below:

"When we go on these government trips, it's for a very simple reason—because we don't want government officials to film it themselves, edit it themselves and then hand it off to us," Robertson said. "We want to go for ourselves. We want to go and see, is it a command and control system?"

Robertson said Fox News was being "hypocritical" because the network sent a non-editorial staffer with a camera on the trip, along with about 40 other journalists.

Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin called in to "On the Record" Monday night to defend her report, which was based off information she received from British sources. "They felt that the civilians and journalists had effectively been used as human shields and that was frustrating to them," Griffin said, according to TVNewser. "It was a very close call. In fact one official told me that there was a Reuters crew literally on a spot where they were going to drop a missile."

While Griffin is sticking by her reporting, she acknowledged that Fox News correspondent Steve Harrigan sent a security guard with a camera on the government-organized trip. "I did not know about that earlier today," she said. "I became aware of that this evening. That was my mistake and I apologize for that."

To follow Pepe's articles on the Great Arab Revolt, please click here.

Lies, hypocrisy and hidden agendas. This is what United States President Barack Obama did not dwell on when explaining his Libya doctrine to America and the world. The mind boggles with so many black holes engulfing this splendid little war that is not a war (a "time-limited, scope-limited military action", as per the White House) - compounded with the inability of progressive thinking to condemn, at the same time, the ruthlessness of the Muammar Gaddafi regime and the Anglo-French-American "humanitarian" bombing.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 has worked like a Trojan horse, allowing the Anglo-French-American consortium - and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - to become the UN's air force in its support of an armed uprising. Apart from having nothing to do with protecting civilians, this arrangement is absolutely illegal in terms of international law. The inbuilt endgame, as even malnourished African kids know by now, but has never been acknowledged, is regime change.

Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard of Canada, NATO's commander for Libya, may insist all he wants that the mission is purely designed to protect civilians. Yet those "innocent civilians" operating tanks and firing Kalashnikovs as part of a rag-tag wild bunch are in fact soldiers in a civil war - and the focus should be on whether NATO from now on will remain their air force, following the steps of the Anglo-French-American consortium. Incidentally, the "coalition of the wiling" fighting Libya consists of only 12 NATO members (out of 28) plus Qatar. This has absolutely nothing to do with an "international community".

The full verdict on the UN-mandated no-fly zone will have to wait for the emergence of a "rebel" government and the end of the civil war (if it ends soon). Then it will be possible to analyze how Tomahawking and bombing was ever justified; why civilians in Cyrenaica were "protected" while those in Tripoli were Tomahawked; what sort of "rebel" motley crew was "saved"; whether this whole thing was legal in the first place; how the resolution was a cover for regime change; how the love affair between the Libyan "revolutionaries" and the West may end in bloody divorce (remember Afghanistan); and which Western players stand to immensely profit from the wealth of a new, unified (or balkanized) Libya.

For the moment at least, it's quite easy to identify the profiteers.

The Pentagon

Pentagon supremo Robert Gates said this weekend, with a straight face, there are only three repressive regimes in the whole Middle East: Iran, Syria and Libya. The Pentagon is taking out the weak link - Libya. The others were always key features of the neo-conservative take-out/evil list. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, etc are model democracies.

As for this "now you see it, now you don't" war, the Pentagon is managing to fight it not once, but twice. It started with Africom - established under the George WBush administration, beefed up under Obama, and rejected by scores of African governments, scholars and human rights organizations. Now the war is transitioning to NATO, which is essentially Pentagon rule over its European minions.

This is Africom's first African war, conducted up to now by General Carter Ham out of his headquarters in un-African Stuttgart. Africom, as Horace Campbell, professor of African American studies and political science at Syracuse University puts it, is a scam; "fundamentally a front for US military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. US military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give Africom credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention."

Africom's Tomahawks also hit - metaphorically - the African Union (AU), which, unlike the Arab League, cannot be easily bought by the West. The Arab Gulf petro-monarchies all cheered the bombing - but not Egypt and Tunisia. Only five African countries are not subordinated to Africom; Libya is one of them, along with Sudan, Ivory Coast, Eritrea and Zimbabwe.

NATO

NATO's master plan is to rule the Mediterranean as a NATO lake. Under these "optics" (Pentagon speak) the Mediterranean is infinitely more important nowadays as a theater of war than AfPak.

There are only three out of 20 nations on or in the Mediterranean that are not full members of NATO or allied with its "partnership" programs: Libya, Lebanon and Syria. Make no mistake; Syria is next. Lebanon is already under a NATO blockade since 2006. Now a blockade also applies to Libya. The US - via NATO - is just about to square the circle.

Saudi Arabia

What a deal. King Abdullah gets rid of his eternal foe Gaddafi. The House of Saud - in trademark abject fashion - bends over backwards for the West's benefit. The attention of world public opinion is diverted from the Saudis invading Bahrain to smash a legitimate, peaceful, pro-democracy protest movement.

The House of Saud sold the fiction that "the Arab League" as a whole voted for a no-fly zone. That is a lie; out of 22 members, only 11 were present at the vote; six are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. The House of Saud just needed to twist the arms of three more. Syria and Algeria were against it. Translation; only nine out of 22 Arab countries voted for the no-fly zone.

Now Saudi Arabia can even order GCC head Abdulrahman al-Attiyah to say, with a straight face, "the Libyan system has lost its legitimacy." As for the "legitimate" House of Saud and the al-Khalifas in Bahrain, someone should induct them into the Humanitarian Hall of Fame.

Qatar

The hosts of the 2022 soccer World Cup sure know how to clinch a deal. Their Mirages are helping to bomb Libya while Doha gets ready to market eastern Libya oil. Qatar promptly became the first Arab nation to recognize the Libyan "rebels" as the only legitimate government of the country only one day after securing the oil marketing deal.

The 'rebels'All the worthy democratic aspirations of the Libyan youth movement notwithstanding, the most organized opposition group happens to be the National Front for the Salvation of Libya - financed for years by the House of Saud, the CIA and French intelligence. The rebel "Interim Transitional National Council" is little else than the good ol' National Front, plus a few military defectors. This is the elite of the "innocent civilians" the "coalition" is "protecting".

Right on cue, the "Interim Transitional National Council" has got a new finance minister, US-educated economist Ali Tarhouni. He disclosed that a bunch of Western countries gave them credit backed by Libya's sovereign fund, and the British allowed them to access $1.1 billion of Gaddafi's funds. This means the Anglo-French-American consortium - and now NATO - will only pay for the bombs. As war scams go this one is priceless; the West uses Libya's own cash to finance a bunch of opportunists Libyan rebels to fight the Libyan government. And on top of it the Americans, the Brits and the French feel the love for all that bombing. Neo-cons must be kicking themselves; why couldn't former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz come up with something like this for Iraq 2003?

The French

Oh la la, this could be material for a Proustian novel. The top spring collection in Paris catwalks is the President Nicolas Sarkozy fashion show - a no-fly zone model with Mirage/Rafale air strike accessories. This fashion show was masterminded by Nouri Mesmari, Gaddafi's chief of protocol, who defected to France in October 2010. The Italian secret service leaked to selected media outlets how he did it. The role of the DGSE, the French secret service, has been more or less explained on paid website Maghreb Confidential.

Essentially, the Benghazi revolt coq au vin had been simmering since November 2010. The cooks were Mesmari, air force colonel Abdullah Gehani, and the French secret service. Mesmari was called "Libyan WikiLeak", because he spilled over virtually every one of Gaddafi's military secrets. Sarkozy loved it - furious because Gaddafi had cancelled juicy contracts to buy Rafales (to replace his Mirages now being bombed) and French-built nuclear power plants.

That explains why Sarkozy has been so gung ho into posing as the new Arab liberator, was the first leader of a European power to recognize the "rebels" (to the disgust of many at the European Union), and was the first to bomb Gaddafi's forces.

This busts open the role of shameless self-promoting philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, who's now frantically milking in the world's media that he phoned Sarkozy from Benghazi and awakened his humanitarian streak. Either Levy is a patsy, or a convenient "intellectual" cherry added to the already-prepared bombing cake.

Terminator Sarkozy is unstoppable. He has just warned every single Arab ruler that they face Libya-style bombing if they crack down on protesters. He even said that the Ivory Coast was "next". Bahrain and Yemen, of course, are exempt. As for the US, it is once again supporting a military coup (it didn't work with Omar "Sheikh al-Torture" Suleiman in Egypt; maybe it will work in Libya).

Al-Qaeda

The oh so convenient bogeyman resurfaces. The Anglo-French-American consortium - and now NATO - are (again) fighting alongside al-Qaeda, represented by al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQM).

Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi - who has fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan - extensively confirmed to Italian media that he had personally recruited "around 25" jihadis from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against the US in Iraq; now "they are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

This after Chad's president Idriss Deby stressed that AQM had raided military arsenals in Cyrenaica and may be now holding quite a few surface-to-air missiles. In early March, AQM publicly supported the "rebels". The ghost of Osama bin Laden must be pulling a Cheshire cat; once again he gets the Pentagon to work for him. The water privatizers

Few in the West may know that Libya - along with Egypt - sits over the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer; that is, an ocean of extremely valuable fresh water. So yes, this "now you see it, now you don't" war is a crucial water war. Control of the aquifer is priceless - as in "rescuing" valuable natural resources from the "savages".

This Water Pipelineistan - buried underground deep in the desert along 4,000 km - is the Great Man-Made River Project (GMMRP), which Gaddafi built for $25 billion without borrowing a single cent from the IMF or the World Bank (what a bad example for the developing world). The GMMRP supplies Tripoli, Benghazi and the whole Libyan coastline. The amount of water is estimated by scientists to be the equivalent to 200 years of water flowing down the Nile.

Compare this to the so-called three sisters - Veolia (formerly Vivendi), Suez Ondeo (formerly Generale des Eaux) and Saur - the French companies that control over 40% of the global water market. All eyes must imperatively focus on whether these pipelines are bombed. An extremely possible scenario is that if they are, juicy "reconstruction" contracts will benefit France. That will be the final step to privatize all this - for the moment free - water. From shock doctrine to water doctrine.

Well, that's only a short list of profiteers - no one knows who'll get the oil - and the natural gas - in the end. Meanwhile, the (bombing) show must go on. There's no business like war business.

Unsure: Libyan rebels retreat from the outskirts of the city of Ajdabiya, south of Benghazi. Nato members are also fighting over who will take command of allied forces.

* Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
* French propose a new political ‘committee’ to oversee operations
* Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign’s direction
* Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
* No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes ‘neutralises’ Libyan military machine
* U.K. ministers say war could last ’30 years’
* Italy to ‘take back control’ of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
* Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians – calls bombing a ‘crusade’

Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.
U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.

Strikel: Gaddafi's forces have taken a pounding from allied air offensives. The news comes as Italy has warned it may withdraw use of its military bases if no NATO agreement is reached.

But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be ‘unwise’ to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the ‘U.N. mandate’.

President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces within days, handing the reins over to NATO.

But Germany and European allies remain unwilling to have NATO take on a military operation that theoretically has nothing to do with the defence of Europe.

Today the German defence ministry announced Berlin had pulled out of any military operations in the Mediterranean.

A ministry spokesman said two frigates and two other ships with a crew of 550 would be reverted to German command.

Some 60 to 70 German troops participating in NATO-operated AWACS surveillance operations in the Mediterranean would also be withdrawn, according to the ministry.

Berlin isn’t participating in the operation to impose a no-fly zone in Libya and abstained on the U.N. resolution authorising it.

France, which launched the initial air strikes on Libya on Saturday, has argued against giving the U.S.-led NATO political control over an operation in an Arab country, while Turkey has called for limits to any alliance involvement.

In a bid to halt the embarrassing bickering, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe today proposed a new war committee to oversee operations.

The new body, Mr Juppe said, would bring together foreign ministers of participating states – such as Britain, France and the U.S. – as well as the Arab League.

Meanwhile the head of the Italian Senate’s defence affairs committee, Gianpiero Cantoni, said the original French anti-NATO stance was motivated by a desire to secure oil contracts with a future Libyan government.

Some allies are even questioning whether a no-fly zone is still necessary, given the damage already done by air strikes to Gaddafi’s military capabilities.

Speaking about yesterday’s hastily arranged meeting of NATO allies, one diplomat said: ‘The meeting became a little bit emotional,’ before adding that France had argued that the coalition led by Britain, the United States and France should retain political control of the mission, with NATO providing operational support, including command-and-control capabilities.

‘Others are saying NATO should have command or no role at all and that it doesn’t make sense for NATO to play a subsidiary role,’ the diplomat added.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

‘There are U.N. decisions and these decisions clearly have a defined framework. A NATO operation which goes outside this framework cannot be legitimised,’ he told news channel CNN Turk.

Adding pressure to the already fractured alliance, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has also reiterated a warning that Italy would take back control of airbases it has authorised for use by allies for operations over Libya unless a NATO coordination structure was agreed.

In a shock admission, U.K. ministers have admitted the intervention in Libya could last for up to ’30 years’.

Asked for an estimate, British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey said: ‘How long is a piece of string? We don’t know how long this is going to go on.

‘We don’t know if this is going to result in a stalemate. We don’t know if his capabilities are going to be degraded quickly. Ask me again in a week.’

In the U.S., Obama has made it clear he wants no part of any leadership role in Libya.

The President has already been criticised for continuing with a tour of Latin America as the military operation over Libya began. And yesterday he insisted again that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. is not prepared to remove him by force, but merely to enforce the no-fly zone.

Even that hesitant stance, which has already earned him the title of the Great Vacillator, left him criticised for not seeking proper approval from Congress before sending the American military in.

And after reports emerged that Gaddafi’s son had been killed in a kamikaze strike yesterday, fresh questions over what exactly the U.S. intends to achieve in Libya emerged.

With Turkey digging its heels in and the Arab League suspicious, it has been pointed out that Mr Obama has fewer coalition partners in Libya than George Bush did at the start of the Iraq war.

He was criticised by both Republicans and Democrats over his decision to commit the U.S. military before going to Congress.

Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California, Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland all complained that Mr Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without Congressional permission.

The President hit back in a two-page letter to Congress and again reiterated his claim that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. was only in Libya to enforce the no-fly zone for the protection of civilians.

France has already taken a leading role in the conflict, with President Nicolas Sarkozy hosting a summit in Paris over the weekend and French bombers being the first to enforce the no-fly zone.

Last night Britain’s top general was embroiled in an extraordinary clash with Downing Street over the legality of a strike to kill Gaddafi.

No 10 slapped down Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards after he flatly rejected ministers’ suggestions that the Libyan dictator was a legitimate target for assassination.

Downing Street and Foreign Office officials were quick to dispute that – saying assassinating Gaddafi would be legal because it would preserve civilian lives in Libya.

But U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates quickly dismissed the suggestion, describing the calls for Gaddafi’s killing ‘unwise’.

Desperately trying to keep the mission on track, he warned that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.

‘If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,’ he said. ‘I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.’

Mr Obama has not directly discussed the military action with British Prime Minister David Cameron since it began on Saturday – an omission that would have been unthinkable under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The public spat just days into the operation highlighted growing tensions about ‘mission creep’ in the assault on Gaddafi.

Meanwhle, the coalition abandoned a further raid by Tornado bombers when SAS soldiers on the ground warned that civilians and journalists were being used as human shields.

On Saturday Gaddafi’s son was said to have been killed in a Tomahawk missile strike on the dictator’s compound carried out by the British submarine HMS Triumph.

And soon afterwards, it was reduced to rubble by a precision strike from the 1,000lb weapons. The block was about 150 yards from the tents which the Libyan leader uses as his official residence.

It is not known where the dictator was at the time of the bombing but he has not been seen or heard since the attack. He may have fled into the desert. Senior government sources described the hugely symbolic strike at the heart of his regime as a ‘shot across his bows’.

But there was outright condemnation from Russian premier Vladimir Putin, who gave fuel to Muslim critics of the attacks by branding the UN resolution backing the use of force – a resolution on which Russia abstained – a return to the Crusades.

Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League said that while he supports a no-fly zone, ‘the Arab League was against aerial bombing in principle’.

The North Atlantic Council will meet today to thrash out the differences as every Nato country must agree the plans.

Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan called for air strikes to end ‘as soon as possible’.

‘If Nato is going into operation we have some conditions,’ Mr Erdogan said. ‘Nato should go in with the recognition and acknowledgement that Libya belongs to the Libyans, not for the distribution of its underground resources and wealth.’

Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said legal procedures for establishing a coalition ‘were not sufficiently respected’ by the West.

Mr Cameron responded: ‘There are millions in the Arab world who frankly want to know that the UN, the U.S., the UK, the French [and] the international community care about their suffering and their oppression.’

Defence officials say Qatari war planes are to join the no-fly zone operation and the United Arab Emirates is being pressured to help too.

Some countries Monday blasted the ongoing West-led military operation against Libya government forces, saying the air raids went beyond the UN resolution and must be scrapped immediately.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin severely criticized the U.S. role in the “Odyssey Dawn” operation against Libya.

“The use of force against other countries became a steady trend in the U.S. policy,” Putin noted, adding this trend was “disturbing.”

He also said the UN resolution “is, surely, flawed and lame…as it allows intervention in a sovereign country.”

The UN Security Council adopted a resolution Thursday to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorize all necessary measures, excluding ground troops, to safeguard Libyan civilians.

A number of Western powers including France, Britain, the United States, Denmark and Italy have launched a string of air strikes on Libyan targets since Saturday.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe reprimanded the West for bombing Libya, saying some countries manipulated the UN resolution to bombard Libya.

“The West is bombarding Libya and they are doing it in a callous way. They don’t care who dies and actually they want (Muammar) Gaddafi to die,” he told reporters.Mugabe said the African Union and the Arab League had indeed been cheated by the West.

“Our people could not have voted for the destruction of Libyan lives. It’s undoing the Libyan people. I regret it very much,” he said, noting Libya was being attacked by the West for its oil.

Bolivian President Evo Morales told a press conference that it was unaccepted that the Western coalition, under the pretext of protecting Libyan civilians, bombed and destroyed the country.
He urged the United Nations to order an immediate end to the military operation.

He described the intervention as “a crime, an assault and an aggression.”

Morales also called for the withdrawal of the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate from U.S. President Barack Obama.

“Two years ago we heard President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but at this moment is he defending the peace of the world or is he promoting violence? That is why his prize must be withdrawn,” Morales said.

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa denounced the military intervention as “terrible,” and called for an “immediate ceasefire” to make way for peaceful negotiations.

He said Ecuador was firmly against the intervention.

“It is terrible. I think Libya should solve its problems on its own. The only thing the United Nations approved is a no-fly zone. That is to say that Gaddafi’s aircraft can’t bomb the rebels, but what they have done is to bomb all the way to Tripoli, and that is unacceptable,” said Correa.

He said all countries in the Middle East must resolve their problems on their own without the intervention of foreign powers.

Correa repeated calls for the international community to engage in mediation efforts between the parties in Libya so that a peaceful resolution can be found to avoid further bloodshed.

“Perhaps we didn’t learn anything from the case of Iraq? How many lives has the war there cost? How can the human beings make the same mistakes again?”

Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, in his microblog, raised questions about the military operation.

He said more diplomatic efforts should have been made to resolve the Libyan crisis.

Recently India and China also pointed out that their nations are against the war in Libya.

NATO's murderous policy continues in Libya as, against every fibre of international law, its leaders continue to target civilians, civilian structures and Colonel Gaddafi himself without the slightest iota of respect for human life. The news of the death of Gaddafi's grandchildren was met with a derisory sniff by Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy.

The one who is murdering children is NATO. One wonders how these three would react to the news that their children or grandchildren had been targeted by terrorists, blasted to pieces by a bomb. Would they scoff and say "Well they shouldn't have been in a command and control centre"? If civilian residences are military targets for NATO, what then would Downing Street be? Or the White House? Or the Elysée Palace?

NATO is bound and restricted by UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973, which state there is to be a no-fly zone (imposed already, so why is NATO still there?) and measures to protect civilian life. Why then is NATO acting to aid and support terrorists led by one Hashidi, who was actively engaged in obtaining Benghazi-based terrorists to fight alongside bin Laden's Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and to provide the bulk of the suicide bombers in Iraq? Why have Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy systematically failed to refer to this and why have the media in their countries skirted round these questions? The one who is murdering children is NATO.

Why the cover-up?

Are these whom they protect unarmed civilians, or heavily armed terrorists? After all, who is murdering children? The one who is murdering children is NATO. It would be interesting to see how Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy would react if there was an armed insurrection of the same type in their countries. Would they sit back and allow marauding groups of thugs with automatic weapons and Rocket-Propelled Grenades to attack Government buildings, ransack Government and private property, commit acts of arson, vandalism and wanton destruction, commit murder, cutting people to pieces in the streets as their "rebels" have done?

Under the UN Charter the Government forces of Colonel Muammar Al-Gaddafi have the right to fight back and the coalition formed by the USA, UK, France and now Italy have no right whatsoever to launch this attack against a sovereign state, especially without the express permission of the UNSC military commission, which has not been convened. The one who is murdering children is NATO.

The attempts to murder Gaddafi are war crimes, the killing of his son and grandchildren amount to acts of cold-blooded murder. Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy, now Berlusconi, have blood on their hands. In giving the go-ahead for these strikes, they are cold-blooded callous killers. As for NATO, well it is a terrorist organization, always was, is and always will be. The one who is murdering children is NATO.

How amazing it is that the citizens of these countries sit on their backsides happy that their leaders are committing murder and do nothing. The one who is murdering children is NATO. And the apathy of its citizens would point towards the fact that they either think it is OK, or just don't care.

A final question to Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy: How would you feel if your kids and grandchildren were murdered in cold bloody by a terrorist? Apparently, you couldn't care less...

Photo: Libya's unarmed civilians, who have just decapitated Africans in Benghazi. Nice fellows, what? And these are the people Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy are supporting. Multiply 6,000 missions by 6 (hours) and now by 50.000 USD. That is how much of your money they have wasted so far on Libya. Now add the cruise missiles, at 500,000 USD a piece. Sorry about that operation, Mrs. Smith. No money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG0Qt6cebkw (the rebels from Benghazi burned a man,cut off his head, arms and legs, rip off his heart, and played with it, while cheering, in the middle of the day on a square in﻿ Benghazi (Libya)… this was before﻿ Gadaffi even started fighting with them .. 18+)

There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law.

Having a home considered a human right in Libya.

All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 dinar (U.S.$50,000) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.

Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25 percent of Libyans were literate. Today, the figure is 83 percent.

Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kickstart their farms are all for free.

If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need, the government funds them to go abroad, for it is not only paid for, but they get a U.S.$2,300/month for accommodation and car allowance.

If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50 percent of the price.

The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.

Libya has no external debt and its reserves amounting to $150 billion are now frozen globally (some sources put the amount frozen at $200 billion – that is almost half of the money Europe needs to get out of its financial crisis).

If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or she is employed, until employment is found.

A portion of every Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

A mother who gives birth to a child receive U.S.$5,000.

40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $0.15.

25 percent of Libyans have a university degree.

Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Manmade River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.

New defence secretary says companies should be ready to cash in on reconstruction contracts in newly liberated Libya

The starting pistol for British firms to pursue contracts in Libya has been fired by the new defence secretary, Philip Hammond, who urged companies to "pack their suitcases" and head there to secure reconstruction contracts.

As Nato announced that it plans to wind up operations in Libya, Hammond said that great care had been taken during the campaign to avoid destroying critical infrastructure.

"Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya," he told the BBC in an interview.

"I would expect British companies, even British sales directors, [to be] packing their suitcases and looking to get out to Libya and take part in the reconstruction of that country as soon as they can," said Hammond, who replaced Liam Fox as defence secretary a week ago.

He added that after a "hugely successful" British mission in Libya, Britain now needed "to support the Libyans to turn the liberation of their country into a successful stabilisation so that Libya can be a beacon of prosperity and democracy in north Africa going forward."

The National Transitional Council has already said that it intends to reward countries who showed support for its fight against the Gaddafi regime, with Britain and France likely to lead the way.

The success of British contractors in the country – which could see billions of pounds spent on reconstruction over the next decade – will be seen as a huge victory for prime minister David Cameron, who visited Tripoli and NTC members last month, along with Nicolas Sarkozy.

British gains in Libya include business and reconstruction contracts, as well as oil. As Libya's £100bn in frozen assets around the world are released, it is a sizeable pot.

Lord Green, a trade minister, has already met with British firms to discuss potential opportunities in Libya, and oil company BP is believed to have already held talks with the NTC.

In a press conference in September, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the interim Libyan prime minister, praised the "brave positions" of Cameron and Sarkozy. "They showed us political, economic and military support, which helped the rebels establish a state, and we thank France and the UK for that," he said.

But while Guma al-Gamaty, the NTC's UK representative, has said Libya would honour contracts signed under the Gaddafi regime, he has also indicated that British companies might not get "easy business" from Libya.

"There will be huge changes in everything – in the oil and gas sectors, in education, and with the creation of new industrial sectors," he said. "But it's not a guaranteed market. Contracts will be awarded not on the basis of political favouritism, but on merit, quality and competitiveness."

France has already begun its own campaign to secure business in the country. French foreign minister Alain Juppé has said it was only "fair and logical" for its companies to benefit.

Daniel Kawczynski, a Conservative backbencher and chair of the cross-party parliamentary group on Libya, said Britain should come first when it comes to awarding contracts, which would also pay back some of the cost of some £300m spent on military action.

"The question that remains is, who should ultimately bear this cost?" he said. "Should the burden fall on those who could be counted on? Or should, in time, Libya repay those who fought with her, and for her?"

He added: "In these difficult economic times, it should not be too much to ask a country with Libya's wealth and resources to pay their share of the gold."

In 2010 Gaddafi offered to invest $97 billion in Africa to free it from Western influence, on condition that African states rid themselves of corruption and nepotism. Gaddafi always dreamed of a Developed, United Africa and was about to make that dream come true - and nothing is more terrifying to the West than a Developed, United Africa.

Here is a selection of the initiatives Libya has already put in place in Africa, as well as some of the projects it is planning, explaining why the West's illegal war against Libya also is a war against Entire Africa.

AFRICAN UNION: Libya is one of the biggest contributors to the budget of the African Union. A Libyan diplomat told Reuters Libya is one of five countries -- the others are Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa -- which cover 75 percent of the Union's budget. "Libya makes its full required contribution to AU funds. Not all countries do and that buys it influence," a senior African Union official said.

MALI: For several years Mali has been confronted with the activities of the radical Islamist militia Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in its northern deserts. Gaddafi’s money and diplomacy have helped to resolve conflicts in northern Mali between rebels and the government. In 2010 Libya has given Mali two security planes to combat insecurity in the north of the country. These conflicts could flare up again if Gaddafi exits the stage. Nowadays Gaddafi has many supporters in Mali who regularly march to protest against the Western-led military intervention in Libya.

CONGO: Libya has put $65 billion into sovereign wealth funds, including one which is specifically designed to make investments in Africa. The Libyan Arab African Investment Company, a vehicle of Libya's Africa sovereign wealth fund, owns Le Meridien, one of the biggest hotels in Congo. The hotel is undergoing refurbishment paid for by Libyan investment. In 2010, Libya planned to fund the building of a highway north of Congo's capital Brazzaville, where also the building of a mosque is planned.

LIBERIA: Libya has provided millions in investment projects, helping to strengthen the rule of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in one of Africa’s most impoverished nations. Gaddafi's help includes the funding of a rubber processing factory built in Gbarnga, Bong County, a technical and vocational school for the handicapped, as well as Libyan assistance in helping Liberia tackle the food crisis and renovation for the Ducor Intercontinental Hotel.

NIGER: Also in Niger Gaddafi has helped to prop up the government and the authorities would become more fragile without his financial help. Libyan Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi visited Niger in August 2010 and announced the creation of a $100 million investment fund for Niger as part of a strengthening of bilateral ties. Under earlier agreements, Libya is contributing 100 million euros for the construction of a Trans-Sahara highway in the north of Niger, according to sources close to Niger's foreign ministry. The local subsidiary of Libya Oil, along with Total, are the major players in Niger's fuel retailing business.

CHAD: Gaddafi has been a key supporter of the government, which would weaken if it lost his aid revenue. Chad has been plagued by civil wars and invasions after its independence from France in 1960. After years of unrest, Gaddafi seals a peace agreement for Chad between four Chadian rebel groups and the Chadian government in 2007, which agreement was signed in Sirte.
In 2010 Libya made a huge investment in Chad's National Telecom, which meant a boost of the number of the Chadian mobile phone users from 100,000 to two million.

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: Libya has helped to prop up the fragile government, sending paratroopers into the capital in 2001 to defeat a rebel assault. In 2008 Gaddafi played a role in the formation of a peace agreement between the government and rebel groups.

MAURITANIA: Gaddafi was the first head of state to visit after a 2008 coup which brought President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz to power. Aziz, who subsequently won a presidential election, has visited Gaddafi several times since then. Even Mauritanian opposition politicians have gone to Tripoli to pledge allegiance to the Libyan leader. Mauritania has debts to Libya of about $200 million. During discussions on debt relief in May 2010, the Libyan Central Bank announced Libya would provide $50 in grants to build a hospital and a university. The university is to be named after Gaddafi.

SUDAN: The 20,000-troop peacekeeping mission in Dafur, jointly supported by the African Union and the United Nations, could be hampered if the African Union (AU) loses funding from Gaddafi and destabilize the country. Gaddafi, who blamed the crisis in Darfur on Israel, made a number of attempts to broker peace talks between Darfur rebels and the Sudanese government.
In October 2010, Gaddafi warned ahead of a vote on possible independence for South Sudan that a partition of the country would be a “contagious disease” that could spread to other African states.

ETHIOPIA: The African Union, based in Ethiopia's capital, could find itself in financial trouble if it loses the massive support that Gaddafi gives it. Under his rule, Libya supplied 15% of the AU’s membership dues, and it also paid the dues of many smaller and poorer African nations. To seek for a solution of the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, Gaddafi has sent a special envoy to Ethiopia in 2000. In 2008, Libya's OiLibya bought Shell Ethiopia. This agreement also included retaining all Shell employees, who were hoping to work in a better environment since a long time

SOMALIA: The African Union peace keeping mission, whose 8,000 soldiers are crucial to the battle against Islamic radicals in Somalia's capital Mogadishu, could be severely weakened if the AU lost the financial support of Gaddafi. In 2008 Libya decided to grant an investment fund to Somalia through the Sahel-Saharan Investment and Trade Bank to fund infrastructures such as roads and bridges within Somalia.

GAMBIA: Libyan firms own two hotels and the "Dream Park" entertainment centre in Gambia. Gambian agriculture has received support from Libya, including a donation of seven new tractors. In 2009 Gaddafi gave two camels to Gambian President Yahya Jammeh as a gift. The Libyan and Gambian presidents have exchanged visits and senior Gambian officials attended ceremonies in September to mark the anniversary of Gaddafi coming to power. On September 7, 2009, Gambia celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Al Fateh Revolution: "In Libya everyone enjoys Freedom!".

Well I wouldn't go making duas for him so quickly. yes, he did lot of good things it seem. Yet, at the same time we know he did lot of oppressing of his people as well. I think the Libyan people are in better position to decide to make dua for him or curse him. As for us, we should just say that may he gets what he earned.

Qaddafi tortured, raped before being killed...

Who Was Muammar Qaddafi? Libya’s Wealth Redistribution Project

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research
October 27, 2011

Colonel Muammar Qaddafi symbolizes many things to many different people around the world. Love or hate the Libyan leader, under his rule Libya transformed from one of the poorest countries on the face of the planet into the country with the highest standard of living in Africa. In the words of Professor Henri Habibi:

When Libya was granted its independence by the United Nations on December 24, 1951, it was described as one of the poorest and most backward nations of the world. The population at the time was not more than 1.5 million, was over 90% illiterate, and had no political experience or knowhow. There were no universities, and only a limited number of high schools which had been established seven years before independence.
[1]

Qaddafi had many grand plans. He wanted to create a South Atlantic Treaty Organization to protect Africa and Latin America. He advocated for a gold dinar standard as the currency of Muslim countries. Many of his plans were also of a pan-African nature. This included the formation of a United States of Africa.

Qaddafi’s Pan-African Projects

Colonel Qaddafi started the Great Man-Made River, which consisted in a massive project to transform the Sahara Desert and reverse the desertification of Africa. The Great Man-Made River with its irrigation plans was also intended to support the agricultural sector in other parts of Africa. This project was a military target of NATO bombings. Without just cause, NATO’s bombing campaign was intent upon destroying the Great Man-Made River.

Qaddafi also envisioned independent pan-African financial institutions. The Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Foreign Bank were important players in setting up these institutions. Qaddafi, through the Libyan Foreign Bank and the Libyan Investment Authority, was instrumental in setting up Africa’s first satellite network, the Regional African Satellite Communication Organization (RASCOM), to reduce African dependence on external powers. [2]

His crowning achievement would have been the creation of the United States of Africa. The supranational entity would have been created through the African Investment Bank, the African Monetary Fund, and finally the African Central Bank. These institutions were all viewed with animosity by the European Union, United States, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.

Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project

Qaddafi had a wealth redistribution project inside Libya. U.S. Congressional sources in a report to the U.S. Congress even acknowledge this. On February 18, 2011 one report states:

In March 2008, [Colonel Qaddafi] announced his intention to dissolve most government administrative bodies and institute a Wealth Distribution Program whereby state oil revenues would be distributed to citizens on a monthly basis for them to administer personally, in cooperation, and via local committees. Citing popular criticism of government performance in a long, wide ranging speech, [he] repeatedly stated that the traditional state would soon be “dead” in Libya and that direct rule by citizens would be accomplished through the distribution of oil revenues. [The military], foreign affairs, security, and oil production arrangements reportedly would remain national government responsibilities, while other bodies would be phased out. In early 2009, Libya’s Basic People’s Congresses considered variations of the proposals, and the General People’s Congress voted to delay implementation.
[3]

Qaddafi wanted all the people of Libya to have direct access to the nation’s wealth. He was also aware of the deep rooted corruption that plagued the ranks of the Libyan government. This was one of the reasons why he wanted to apply a model of political anarchy in Libya through progressive steps. He was talking about both these project for a few years.

On the other hand, the Wealth Redistribution Project, along with the establishment of an anarchist political system, was viewed as a very serious threat by the U.S., the E.U., and a group of corrupt Libyan officials. If successful, the reforms could have created political unrest amongst many domestic populations around the world. Internally, many Libyan officials were working to delay the project. This included reaching out to external powers to intervene in Libya to stop Qaddafi and his projects.

Why Mahmoud Jibril Joined the Transitional Council

Amongst the Libyan officials that were heavily opposed to this project and viewed it with horror was Mahmoud Jibril. Jibril was put into place by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. Because of strong influence and advice from the U.S. and the E.U., Saif Al-Islam selected Jibril to transform the Libyan economy and impose a wave of neo-liberal economic reforms that would open the Libyan market.

Jibril became the head of two bodies in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the National Planning Council of Libya and National Economic Development Board of Libya. While the National Economic Development Board was a regular ministry, the National Planning Council would actually put Jibril in a government position above that of the Office of the General-Secretary of the People’s Committee of Libya (which is the equivalent of the post of a prime minister). Jibril actually became one of the forces that opened the doors of privatization and poverty in Libya.

About six months before the conflict erupted in Libya, Mahmoud Jibiril actually met with Bernard-Henri Lévy in Australia to discuss forming the Transitional Council and deposing Colonel Qaddafi. [4] He described Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project as “crazy” in minutes and documents from the National Economic Development Board of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. [5] Jibril strongly believed that the Libyan masses were not fit to govern themselves and that an elite should always control the fate and wealth of any nation. What Jibril wanted to do is downsize the Libyan government and layoff a large segment of the public sector, but in exchange increase government regulations in Libya. He would also always cite Singapore as the perfect example of a neo-liberal state. While in Singapore, which he regularly visited, it is likely that he also meet with Bernard-Henri Lévy.

When the problems erupted in Benghazi, Mahmoud Jibril immediately went to Cairo, Egypt. He told his colleagues that he would be back in Tripoli soon, but he had no intention of returning. In reality, he went to Cairo to meet the leaders of the Syrian National Council and Lévy. They were all waiting for him inside Cairo to coordinate the events in Libya and Syria. This is one of the reasons that the Transitional Council has recognized the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government of Syria.

Do Not Pity the Dead, Pity the Living!

Muammar Qaddafi is now dead.

He was murdered in his hometown of Sirte.

He stood his ground until the end like he said he would.

The Transitional Council, which vowed to take him to court had him murdered.

He even reminded the men who beat him, anally raped him, mocked him, and finally murdered him that they were not following the laws of Islam about respectful treatment of prisoners. NATO played a central role and oversaw the whole event.

The murder was systematic, because after Qaddafi was murdered his son and several other Libyan leaders were killed too.

Colonel Qaddafi’s death marks a historic milestone for Libya. An old era has ended in Libya and a new chapter begins.

Libya will not become a new paradise like the Transitional Council says. In many cases the living will envy the dead, because of men like Mahmoud Jibril, Ali Tarhouni, and Sliman Bouchuiguir.

Mahmoud Jibril is a mere opportunist. The man had no problems being a government official under the late Qaddafi. He never complained about human rights or a lack of democracy. He was the prime minister of the Transitional Council of Libya until a few days after the savage murder of Colonel Qaddafi. The opposition of Jibril to the late Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project and his elitist attitude are amongst the reasons he conspired against Qaddafi and helped form the Transitional Council.

Is this ex-regime official, who has always been an open supporter of the Arab dictators in the Persian Gulf, really a representative and champion of the people? How about his colleagues in the Transitional Council who negotiated oil contracts with NATO member states, even before they held any so-called government positions in the Transitional Council?

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is an investigative news program carried on numerous stations in the United States and based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions (now archived) with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on Saturdays on KPFK, Los Angeles, California.

An American model who has appeared in ads for Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani and L'Oreal lost her biggest client Monday after she defended boyfriend Mutassim Gadhafi and the Gadhafi family in an interview with Italian media.

Vanessa Hessler, a blonde, long-legged 23-year-old Italian-American model, said that she had shared a "very beautiful love story" of four years with Mutassim Gadhafi, the 36-year-old son and heir of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi who died with his father in a last stand outside the Libyan city of Sirte on Oct. 21.
Hessler also said that the West had made a mistake in backing the rebels who ended Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year reign. "We, France and the United Kingdom, financed the rebels but people don't know what they are doing," Hessler told Italian magazine Diva e Donna, adding that she is disgusted by what is happening in Libya and that "the Gaddafi family is not how they are being depicted, they are normal people."

On Monday, Telefonica Germany fired Hessler from a job that had made her instantly recognizable to television viewers across Germany, France and Italy. For several years, Hessler had been known to the public as "Alice," the onscreen spokeswoman for the company's "Alice" internet service, but Telefonica declared an immediate end to the relationship with a Tweet. Telefonica said the model's romantic relationships were "private business," but the company "cannot accept her comments on the Libya conflict."

World View: In 2011, there was jubilation at Gaddafi's demise. Not any more: the aftermath of foreign intervention is calamitous and bloody

Remember the time when Libya was being held up by the American, British, French and Qatari governments as a striking example of benign and successful foreign intervention? It is worth looking again at film of David Cameron grandstanding as liberator in Benghazi in September 2011 as he applauds the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and tells the crowd that "your city was an example to the world as you threw off a dictator and chose freedom".

Mr Cameron has not been back to Benghazi, nor is he likely to do so as warring militias reduce Libya to primal anarchy in which nobody is safe. The majority of Libyans are demonstrably worse off today than they were under Gaddafi, notwithstanding his personality cult and authoritarian rule. The slaughter is getting worse by the month and is engulfing the entire country.

"Your friends in Britain and France will stand with you as you build your democracy," pledged Mr Cameron to the people of Benghazi. Three years later, they are words he evidently wants to forget, since there was almost no reference to Libya, the one military intervention he had previously ordered, when he spoke in the House of Commons justifying British airstrikes against Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq.

The foreign media has largely ceased to cover Libya because it rightly believes it is too dangerous for journalists to go there. Yet I remember a moment in the early summer of 2011 in the frontline south of Benghazi when there were more reporters and camera crews present than there were rebel militiamen. Cameramen used to ask fellow foreign journalists to move aside when they were filming so that this did not become too apparent. In reality, Gaddafi's overthrow was very much Nato's doing, with Libyan militiamen mopping up.

Human rights organisations have had a much better record in Libya than the media since the start of the uprising in 2011. They discovered that there was no evidence for several highly publicised atrocities supposedly carried out by Gaddafi's forces that were used to fuel popular support for the air war in the US, Britain, France and elsewhere. These included the story of the mass rape of women by Gaddafi's troops that Amnesty International exposed as being without foundation. The uniformed bodies of government soldiers were described by rebel spokesmen as being men shot because they were about to defect to the opposition. Video film showed the soldiers still alive as rebel prisoners so it must have been the rebels who had executed them and put the blame on the government.

Without the rest of the world paying much attention, a civil war has been raging in western Libya since 13 July between the Libya Dawn coalition of militias, originally based in Misrata, and another militia group centred on Zintan. A largely separate civil war between the forces of retired General Khalifa Haftar and the Shura Council of Benghazi Revolutionaries is being fought out in the city. Government has collapsed. Amnesty says that torture has become commonplace with victims being "beaten with plastic tubes, sticks, metal bars or cables, given electric shocks, suspended in stress positions for hours, kept blindfolded and shackled for days."

It is easy enough to deride the neo-imperial posturing of David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, or to describe the abyss into which Libya has fallen since 2011. The people whom that intervention propelled into power have reduced a country that had been peaceful for more than half a century to a level of violence that is beginning to approach that of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever Western intentions, the result has been a disaster.

The temptation is to say that foreign intervention invariably brings catastrophe to the country intervened in. The foreign intervention is always in the interests of the country intervening. These may, for a time, coincide with the real interests of the country where the foreign intervention is taking place, but this seldom lasts very long.

This is the lesson of recent foreign interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

What do you think of when you hear the name Colonel Gaddafi? Tyrant? Dictator? Terrorist? Well, a national citizen of Libya may disagree but we want you to decide.

Ruling the country for for 41 years until his demise in October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi did some truly amazing things for his country and repeatedly tried to unite and empower the whole of Africa. So despite what you’ve heard on the radio, seen in the media or on the TV Gaddafi did some powerful things that were not very reminiscent of a vicious dictator. Here are ten things Gaddafi did for Libya that you may not know about…

1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right.

In Gaddafi’s green book it states: ” The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.

2. Education and medical treatment were all free.

Under Gaddafi’s reign Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Arab and African world. Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.

3. Gaddafi carried out the worlds largest irrigation project.

The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.

4. It was free to start a farming business.

If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.

5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies.

When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.

6. Electricity was free.

Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!

7. Cheap petrol

During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.

8. Gaddafi raised the level of education.

Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. He bought that figure up to 87% under his rule with 25% earning university degrees.
9. Libya had It’s own state bank.

Libya was the only country in the world to have a bank owned by the state meaning they were able to give loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.

10. The gold dinar

Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency made of gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar - a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.

The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.

So, was Muammar Gaddafi a Terrorist?

Few can answer this question fairly, but if anyone can, it’s a Libyan citizen who has lived under his reign? Whatever the case, it seems rather apparent that he did some positive things for his country despite the infamous notoriety surrounding his name. And that’s something you should try to remember when judging in future.

This quirky video documentary spells out an interesting, if rather different, story from the one we think we know.